I have heard the theory of "natural monopolies". Classic examples are telephone service and cable service. Both of which became monopolies because of government intervention NOT because of market forces. The theory of "natural monopoly" was used to justify the government regulating both telephone service and cable service monopolies into existence.
Even without manipulation the data will be corrupted with incorrect information. If people come to rely on these timelines there will be no way to correct such erroneous information. Or if it can be corrected it will only be after spending a lot of effort to do so (and probably money).
If it was not for government action creating local cable monopolies, Comcast would never have been able to be a monopoly. The problem was created BEFORE deregulation. Deregulation did not create Comcast's monopoly. It merely allowed it to extend it into more regions.
Monopolies are not a natural product of an unregulated free market. With rare exceptions, if a market is completely free when a company starts to acquire monopoly power in it some form of competition will arise breaking that monopoly. The only times this does not happen is when the government, at one level or another, steps in to prevent such competition.
If Comcast did not have a monopoly they would not have the ability to shake-down content providers for more money. And since this does nothing to take away that monopoly (which was given to them by the government in the first place) all it does is require Comcast to be more creative(or more secretive) in shaking down content providers for more money.
Most conservatives see monopoly manipulation for what it is, a product of government regulation.
Comcast does not have a near monopoly position because of market forces. It has a near monopoly because of government actions which GAVE it that near monopoly.
No, it won't be the breakup with your ex-girlfriend from years ago that you will be judged on. You will be judged based on that STD that your timeline says you had ten years ago, as reported by a doctor you never saw (or even heard of). The problem isn't that deeds will never be forgotten (well, OK that will be a problem too). It is that deeds you never committed, but the database says you did, will never be forgotten.
As opposed to the various environmentalist groups who get regulations enacted outside normal channels by suing the EPA and then sign a settlement with the EPA for some regulation that has the force of a court order...but is never actually reviewed by a court.
Well, you have a point. Of course, the main reason is because we have seen what failures those policies were. So, what you are saying is that Republicans are capable of learning from their mistakes, but Democrats are not.
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
If Obama had not created instability in Syria and refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, Da'esh/ISIS would never have come into existence. The group which became Da'esh/ISIS may have existed before that, but that was what allowed it to become a "state".
What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people.
So, it was OK for him to imperialistically intervene to bomb that dictator's security forces in order to allow a group inimical to U.S. interests to overthrow said dictator and suppress the wants and needs of the people. If we had stayed out of Libya, Gaddafi would still be in power there and ISIS would likely have never acquired the weapons it needed to rise to power.
Yes, he has a point, a point which is wrong, but a point.
While it is true that if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq ISIS would not have arisen, it is also true that Obama would probably have done the same thing to Saddam which he did to Gaddafi, Mubarak, and attempted to do to Assad. That is, he would have attempted to overthrow Saddam and replace him with instability.
His failure to create instability in Egypt is a reflection of the desires of the Egyptian people rather than any indication of positive action by the Obama Administration. BTW, I am not arguing that the Obama Administration INTENDED to destabilize the Middle East, just that their policies directly resulted in that happening. I do not know what the Obama Administration intended, but I cannot imagine what they would have done differently if they intended to disable the Middle East.
No, the reason we have ISIS is because Obama tried to defeat Assad without actually fighting him. Obama empowered anyone who wanted to overthrow Assad in Syria to do so and provided them with some logistical support without paying any attention to what they wanted to put in his place. Further he did so without providing them sufficient support to actually overthrow Assad. He did the same thing in Libya, although there he provided sufficient support to overthrow a stable government. For that matter he attempted to do the same thing in Egypt, but it turned out that Egypt had not only a stable government, but a legitimate one (as in the people actually supported the government they had despite not supporting its head--Mubarak).
I'm sorry but ISIS was not created by the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. ISIS was created by the "Arab Spring", when Obama supported the overthrow of stable governments in Libya and Egypt. He followed that up by encouraging the overthrow of Assad in Syria but not following through by actually bringing it about.
I will agree that Obama is doing the same thing to the Middle East that he did to the U.S. economy. And, if what Obama is doing is fixing these things I'll take broken.
I have not studied this closely, but I believe that Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, defining certain aspects of their rules which would last until a future Congress passed a law overturning that law. The same is true of the laws delegating their authority.
That, at least is how I understand the legal theory. I do not think the Framers of the Constitution would agree. I am certain they would not approve of Congress delegating so much of their authority.
I am not sure I agree with that legal theory, although it is one that has been accepted by the courts. However, that just brings us to the next question. What law did Congress pass which gives this authority to the FCC?
It would be impractical for Congress to operate at the level of detail overseen by the various commissions and authorities.
Which indicates that it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution that the Federal government not attempt to do so. If you read the various writings of those people you will discover that they thought the federal government should not get into such detail. If anything required close detail, those who wrote the Constitution thought that the laws regulating it should be written by those close to that actual detail.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy.
More importantly, has Congress delegated their authority over this specific issue to the FCC? Of course, as has been demonstrated on the issue of illegal immigration (and several other issues as well), we no longer have a government of laws. The law is now whatever the President (and, in more and more cases, the bureaucrats who theoretically answer to him) says it is. Which means that it can change from day to day and person to person.
But that was your choice. You did not have to rent an apartment in that building. I actually lived in an apartment complex with a similar contract. Except that about 5 years before I moved out, the complex found that they needed to bring in a second ISP for competitive reasons (some people chose not to rent there because they preferred the other ISP).
The reason the problem is systemic throughout the nation is because the federal government encouraged this situation in the first place. The local/regional monopolies exist because of a federal law which allowed them to exist. So, the federal government abused its power by encouraging local/regional monopolies to come into existence. Now you want to reward the federal government by asking them to gather even more power to themselves?
Maybe instead we should ask the federal government to eliminate the law allowing local governments to enter into franchise agreements?
It is not "people" who are signing exclusive deals. It is government which is doing so. May I suggest that the answer is for people to demand that their local government allow such exclusive deals to expire and allow actual competition? Rather than reward the government for abusing its power by demanding that it gather even more power?
Slashdot Mirror
I have heard the theory of "natural monopolies". Classic examples are telephone service and cable service. Both of which became monopolies because of government intervention NOT because of market forces. The theory of "natural monopoly" was used to justify the government regulating both telephone service and cable service monopolies into existence.
Even without manipulation the data will be corrupted with incorrect information. If people come to rely on these timelines there will be no way to correct such erroneous information. Or if it can be corrected it will only be after spending a lot of effort to do so (and probably money).
If it was not for government action creating local cable monopolies, Comcast would never have been able to be a monopoly. The problem was created BEFORE deregulation. Deregulation did not create Comcast's monopoly. It merely allowed it to extend it into more regions. Monopolies are not a natural product of an unregulated free market. With rare exceptions, if a market is completely free when a company starts to acquire monopoly power in it some form of competition will arise breaking that monopoly. The only times this does not happen is when the government, at one level or another, steps in to prevent such competition.
If Comcast did not have a monopoly they would not have the ability to shake-down content providers for more money. And since this does nothing to take away that monopoly (which was given to them by the government in the first place) all it does is require Comcast to be more creative(or more secretive) in shaking down content providers for more money.
Most conservatives see monopoly manipulation for what it is, a product of government regulation. Comcast does not have a near monopoly position because of market forces. It has a near monopoly because of government actions which GAVE it that near monopoly.
They're stripping away Comcast's freedom to shake-down content providers for more money and screw over their customers!
No, this has nothing to do with getting rid of the government encouraged ISP monopolies.
Sort of like when you see a regulation that says "neutrality" you know that what it really means is "only viewpoints the regulators agree with."
No, it won't be the breakup with your ex-girlfriend from years ago that you will be judged on. You will be judged based on that STD that your timeline says you had ten years ago, as reported by a doctor you never saw (or even heard of). The problem isn't that deeds will never be forgotten (well, OK that will be a problem too). It is that deeds you never committed, but the database says you did, will never be forgotten.
As opposed to the various environmentalist groups who get regulations enacted outside normal channels by suing the EPA and then sign a settlement with the EPA for some regulation that has the force of a court order...but is never actually reviewed by a court.
Well, you have a point. Of course, the main reason is because we have seen what failures those policies were. So, what you are saying is that Republicans are capable of learning from their mistakes, but Democrats are not.
Nelson Rockefeller was to the left of Hillary. So was Richard Nixon.
Maybe in your fantasy world.
She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.
The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.
If Obama had not created instability in Syria and refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, Da'esh/ISIS would never have come into existence. The group which became Da'esh/ISIS may have existed before that, but that was what allowed it to become a "state".
What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people.
So, it was OK for him to imperialistically intervene to bomb that dictator's security forces in order to allow a group inimical to U.S. interests to overthrow said dictator and suppress the wants and needs of the people. If we had stayed out of Libya, Gaddafi would still be in power there and ISIS would likely have never acquired the weapons it needed to rise to power.
Nope, I missed that.
Yes, he has a point, a point which is wrong, but a point.
While it is true that if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq ISIS would not have arisen, it is also true that Obama would probably have done the same thing to Saddam which he did to Gaddafi, Mubarak, and attempted to do to Assad. That is, he would have attempted to overthrow Saddam and replace him with instability.
His failure to create instability in Egypt is a reflection of the desires of the Egyptian people rather than any indication of positive action by the Obama Administration. BTW, I am not arguing that the Obama Administration INTENDED to destabilize the Middle East, just that their policies directly resulted in that happening. I do not know what the Obama Administration intended, but I cannot imagine what they would have done differently if they intended to disable the Middle East.
No, the reason we have ISIS is because Obama tried to defeat Assad without actually fighting him. Obama empowered anyone who wanted to overthrow Assad in Syria to do so and provided them with some logistical support without paying any attention to what they wanted to put in his place. Further he did so without providing them sufficient support to actually overthrow Assad. He did the same thing in Libya, although there he provided sufficient support to overthrow a stable government. For that matter he attempted to do the same thing in Egypt, but it turned out that Egypt had not only a stable government, but a legitimate one (as in the people actually supported the government they had despite not supporting its head--Mubarak).
I'm sorry but ISIS was not created by the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. ISIS was created by the "Arab Spring", when Obama supported the overthrow of stable governments in Libya and Egypt. He followed that up by encouraging the overthrow of Assad in Syria but not following through by actually bringing it about.
I will agree that Obama is doing the same thing to the Middle East that he did to the U.S. economy. And, if what Obama is doing is fixing these things I'll take broken.
I have not studied this closely, but I believe that Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, defining certain aspects of their rules which would last until a future Congress passed a law overturning that law. The same is true of the laws delegating their authority.
That, at least is how I understand the legal theory. I do not think the Framers of the Constitution would agree. I am certain they would not approve of Congress delegating so much of their authority.
I am not sure I agree with that legal theory, although it is one that has been accepted by the courts. However, that just brings us to the next question. What law did Congress pass which gives this authority to the FCC?
It would be impractical for Congress to operate at the level of detail overseen by the various commissions and authorities.
Which indicates that it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution that the Federal government not attempt to do so. If you read the various writings of those people you will discover that they thought the federal government should not get into such detail. If anything required close detail, those who wrote the Constitution thought that the laws regulating it should be written by those close to that actual detail.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy.
More importantly, has Congress delegated their authority over this specific issue to the FCC? Of course, as has been demonstrated on the issue of illegal immigration (and several other issues as well), we no longer have a government of laws. The law is now whatever the President (and, in more and more cases, the bureaucrats who theoretically answer to him) says it is. Which means that it can change from day to day and person to person.
But that was your choice. You did not have to rent an apartment in that building. I actually lived in an apartment complex with a similar contract. Except that about 5 years before I moved out, the complex found that they needed to bring in a second ISP for competitive reasons (some people chose not to rent there because they preferred the other ISP).
The reason the problem is systemic throughout the nation is because the federal government encouraged this situation in the first place. The local/regional monopolies exist because of a federal law which allowed them to exist. So, the federal government abused its power by encouraging local/regional monopolies to come into existence. Now you want to reward the federal government by asking them to gather even more power to themselves?
Maybe instead we should ask the federal government to eliminate the law allowing local governments to enter into franchise agreements?
It is not "people" who are signing exclusive deals. It is government which is doing so. May I suggest that the answer is for people to demand that their local government allow such exclusive deals to expire and allow actual competition? Rather than reward the government for abusing its power by demanding that it gather even more power?